If I were god I wouldn't give my creations the desires such as we have, and then tell them they can't act on those desires.

We know that life is hard enough for healthy individuals, so I would ensure that every child is born without deformities.

I wouldn't make some people ugly as sin.

I wouldn't kill any of them.

I wouldn't side with one group over another.

I wouldn't force them, or even just let them worship me.

So you would create robots who had no choice to rebel or no choice to reject to love you as God? How would you enjoy eternal life with billions of
"robots"? Even we as humans are trying to create computers that learn and think for themselves independent of human input and programming.

What is better?
To be a robot or a slave who smiles at his owner all the time because he fears hell?

Regards
DL

Try again, that's a false dichotomy fallacy.

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of
exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at
least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a
completely different alternative.

When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic
principle.
What do you think?

Candide.

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be
created for the best end.”

While I think that would be a logical conclusion, given your assumption, I don't think that it's a necessary one.

One of the main issues that I have with Sam Harris' "the Moral Landscape" is that he fails to provide an objective base for what is "better" or
"worse" for people, and that to say that "better" is to avoid a state of never ending suffering ignores the fact that, if reality was a state of never
ending suffering, we wouldn't know that we were suffering.

The "best of all possible worlds" idea is much the same -- we have no idea whether it is, because we have no idea what that means.

When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic
principle.
What do you think?

Candide.

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be
created for the best end.”

While I think that would be a logical conclusion, given your assumption, I don't think that it's a necessary one.

One of the main issues that I have with Sam Harris' "the Moral Landscape" is that he fails to provide an objective base for what is "better" or
"worse" for people, and that to say that "better" is to avoid a state of never ending suffering ignores the fact that, if reality was a state of
never ending suffering, we wouldn't know that we were suffering.

The "best of all possible worlds" idea is much the same -- we have no idea whether it is, because we have no idea what that means.

edit on
7-9-2012 by adjensen because: tag repair

I guess that Harris had never seen this clip.
To me, the better would be to put sanctity back into marriage and women as the source of life. By putting women down and not giving her equality, men
have put ourselves down and forgotten what our real duty to each other and humanity.

As to the world. It is as is due to billions of interacting parts and to change it, that many changes would have to be planned and executed.
Impossible IOW.

If it is not the best that it can be given all the conditions at hand, it would mean that we are all not doing the best we can with what we
individually have and are and that is not the way humans work. We always try to do the best with what is at hand. So does nature.

When you were born, if you can say that nature did the best she could with your DNA and all the other conditions at hand, then I can say that all
entities started the same way and that means that all is the best of all possible outcomes given the conditions at hand.

Can you say that nature did produce the best she could at your birth, defects and all, if any?

If I were god I wouldn't give my creations the desires such as we have, and then tell them they can't act on those desires.

We know that life is hard enough for healthy individuals, so I would ensure that every child is born without deformities.

I wouldn't make some people ugly as sin.

I wouldn't kill any of them.

I wouldn't side with one group over another.

I wouldn't force them, or even just let them worship me.

So you would create robots who had no choice to rebel or no choice to reject to love you as God? How would you enjoy eternal life with billions of
"robots"? Even we as humans are trying to create computers that learn and think for themselves independent of human input and programming.

What is better?
To be a robot or a slave who smiles at his owner all the time because he fears hell?

Regards
DL

Try again, that's a false dichotomy fallacy.

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life
(Rom. 6:16-22).

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Can you say that nature did produce the best she could at your birth, defects and all, if any?

That is stated as if nature was a sentient being, able to do "well" or "not so well", by moral choice. In my view, nature is without purpose, and
if one had to apply a morality to it, that would be amoral, so the question is an irrational one that I have no answer for. But that's just my
opinion, sorry.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Can you say that nature did produce the best she could at your birth, defects and all, if any?

That is stated as if nature was a sentient being, able to do "well" or "not so well", by moral choice. In my view, nature is without purpose, and
if one had to apply a morality to it, that would be amoral, so the question is an irrational one that I have no answer for. But that's just my
opinion, sorry.

No sentience, no morality, just nature doing what nature does.
Did it inadvertently do the best possible or was it slack in doing the best it could?
That works for any living thing from a blade of grass to a tree.
Does nature try to produce the best tree it can or something less.
Pure logic an reason is all that is required to answer this.

Doulos is both Paul and Peter's favorite way to refer to themselves. Your Greek leaves much to be desired, you can check for yourself what that term
means in Koine Greek.

a slave,

bondman, man of servile condition a slave

metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men devoted to
another to the disregard of one's own interests a servant, attendant

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.